Woodruff v. Byars et al

Filing 42

ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendant's motion to dismiss 33 by June 14, 2012. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 6/1/2012. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Michael Woodruff, # 275658,
Plaintiff,
vs.
William Byars, Director;
Warden Edsel Taylor;
IGC Georgina Ramey;
HCA Darnell Harrison;
Dr. G. Amonitti,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 5:12-344-RMG-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging
violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss on April 19, 2012. ECF No. 33. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court
entered an order on April 19, 2012, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.
1975), advising him of the importance of a motion to dismiss and of the need for him to file
an adequate response. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff was informed that his response was due by May
24, 2012, and was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants’
motion may be granted, thereby ending this case.
Plaintiff has yet to file a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Although
Plaintiff filed two motions to seek outside medical assistance, as well as a motion to appoint
counsel, ECF Nos. 3, 25, 27, those motions did not provide any substantive response to
Defendants’ motion. Further, the court denied those motions. See ECF No. 41.
As originally noted in the court’s Roseboro Order of April 19, 2012, Plaintiff is again
reminded that if he fails to respond adequately to Defendants’ motion, the court may grant
their motion, which may end Plaintiff’s case. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to
advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss by June 14, 2012. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to

respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to
prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 1, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

2